🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins

> But, if you’re “on a break”, you’re not dating nor in the relationship anymore. Many times, couples go on a break and never leave that state, starting other relationships with new people and not talking to each other ever again.

It depends, a lot... I know lots of people who are on a break and still see eachother and even occasionally have sex still (though it happens in the heat of the moment). In fact I usually find the "we are on a brake state" resembles pretty closely the "we are dating but not monogomous yet" state... different ends of the same candle.

Serious question. Did they find any evidence yet in all the trials and stuff going on that clearly shows #Trump intentionally want the capitol riot?

When it happened I saw little clear evidence it was intentional but at the same time based on his behavior and personality I totally would expect it was intentional and somewhere at some point there might have been a record of him saying he wanted it.... If there is any actual evidence I'd love to see it if anyone has any as I havent been following as closely as I should.

@realcaseyrollins

Certainly more rare to use that title and not be monogomous yet.. but not unheard of or quite as rare as you suggest. Though I usually find the pattern goes the other way, people who are BF/GF when they first adopt the title it coincides with monogomy. However once they have been together a long time if they want to see other people as they begin to question the relationship they may do so without breaking up... "We are on a brake [from monogomy]" is usually how i hear it described and it seems to be somewhat common.

@jeff

I brought this up at the time, when the violence broke out he was asking for it to stop after a few hours.

The main counter argument I have heard is that he waited hours until after it already started to die down so it was an insincere gesture.

@realcaseyrollins

> I disagree slightly, as there seem to be virtually no polygamous dating relationships

Polyamourous is totally different. That is when you love and are intimate with multiple people. I agree that is fairly rare in christianity. Thats not what I am talking about.

I am talking about dating multiple people, at the same time, because you havent falled in love with or been particularly intimate with any one of them. This isnt polyamoury, this is just dating people.

Dating multiple people before committing to any one person is absolutely very common int he christian community, and very much the norm.

@realcaseyrollins Yea thats true. but even then I'd hope you want to be explicit... "Hey you wanna go on a date" doesnt convey the same message, even to most christians as "Hey, do you want to be exclusive".

While you might be quite strict and assume the two are the same for the overwhelming majority of Christians you date someone, usually for some time, before becoming "exclusive".

So if you have a partner, even a christian one, a phrase like "monogamous" still holds more value since it is clear and explicit in what it means.

@realcaseyrollins

> I think the distinction between monogamy and non-monogamy is important enough to warrant its own label.

Sure but you are claiming they are equivelant, at least for you. So now monogomy has two labels that mean the same thing.

> At the same time, one can also say “we are boyfriend and girlfriend” without saying anything about monogamy.

But no you cant because "girlfriend" only means monogamy to you, and **some** christian. It isnt universal. So unless someone specifically knows that girlfriend means monogamy to you, then you cant say that and convey the information. You would have to say "She is my girlfriend, and I believe girlfriend is the same as monogamy"

Even if we accept that 100% of christians think like you, which they dont, you'd still have to say "I have a girlfriend and I am christian" where otherwise you could just say "I am monogamous"

@realcaseyrollins That may be, but how your benefitting by having two words that mean the same thing, and how does an additional label like "girlfriend" which carries no **additional** information benefit?

Like you can just say "we are monogamous" and that conveys all the info needed.

Thats sorta my point, there are a handful of useful labels, and a bunch that arent. The "girlfriend" label, for you, just means "monogamous", so its still a label that is largely useless and redundant, not to mention somewhat ambiguous because they are only synonymous for you, so less useful unless someone knows your personal definition.

@realcaseyrollins Some labels are descriptive and useful, others are not.

things like "girl friend" mean very little and its not clear when that line is true. how many dates does it take.

Other labels like "monogamous" are perfectly fine as they mean something specific and understandable. Its less arbitrary.

@wholemilk

CSAM is just the example.. its not about csam its about the "what about the children" nonsense people argue as a counter to free speech and privacy.

@jeff

@jeff

People are basically using the farright attack on people who care about free speech and invasion of privacy which is often done under the guise of "but what about the children"

@wholemilk

@wholemilk

I think its a nod to the fact that people who are against services that invade your privacy for the sake of CSAM are just far right maniacs/

@jeff

Decided to eat some Alligator for dinner, its been a while!

@icedquinn

Sorry that was a typo I meant to say "they are probably **not** a big enough issue..."

@58ee1ae59943750475900a48b5a9ba929f07b786004cc0d8703fe59d796968c1 @realcaseyrollins

@finn1sher

"justifiable" is very subjective. I can think of tons of scenarios where its justified, and I am sure you would disagree with me. To which I'd conclude you are wrong and youd conclude I am wrong.

So in the end nothing is really being said here that changes anything.

@lowqualityfacts

@icedquinn

They are probably a big enough issue to cause us to not use trollys... but it is still a valid consideration when evaluating the pros and cons.

@58ee1ae59943750475900a48b5a9ba929f07b786004cc0d8703fe59d796968c1 @realcaseyrollins

@icedquinn

Ideally it isnt. But in reality we all know people make mistakes and it can save a life.

@58ee1ae59943750475900a48b5a9ba929f07b786004cc0d8703fe59d796968c1 @realcaseyrollins

@58ee1ae59943750475900a48b5a9ba929f07b786004cc0d8703fe59d796968c1

Yes but those have trade offs too... a steel railed vehial for example is much slower to get moving due to the decreased friction and much harder to stop quickly for example.

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn